Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Army of the Danube order of battle

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Army of the Danube order of battle[edit]

Nominator(s): Auntieruth55 (talk)
Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because...it looks like it meets the requirements, it fills a wikigap, and it's part of a larger project on the 1799–1800 French and Austrian campaigns in southwestern Germany and northeastern Switzerland. I've tried to deal with the issues raised in peer review, although there was really only 1, and it was regarding the name--Should it be Order of battle of the Army of the Danube, or Army of the Danube order of battle, and since the latter seems less cumbersome than the former, and there was no agreement on the naming conventions of the last discussion of this, I've chosen the latter. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments
    • No dab links and external links all work. No images, so alt text and licencing not an issue (no action required);
    • I think there should be a space between the endash in the date in the infobox (e.g. 2 March–11 December 1799, I think should be "2 March – 11 December 1799);
  • done
    • In the lead you state that the Army was disbanded in November 1799, but the date in the infobox is 11 December 1799. Is there a reason for this difference?
  • It took a while for the units to get to their destinations. And General Turreau remained in command of the army (a paper army) until 11 December
    • I think the endash in the Notes field for the Left Brigade in the Advanced Guard section should be unspaced;
  • Okay, but I was using the dash template there, which adds spaces.
    • In the Units field of the Detached Flank in the Advanced Guard section "1st light infantry" - is that a unit name or a type of unit? If it is a unit name it should be capitalised as 1st Light Infantry;
  • done
    • Also in these sections should it be "2 battalions" or "two battalions" "one squadron" etc. The MOS usually prefers words for values less than 10;
  • changed back
    • Where you have Strength of Advance Guard: "6,292 infantry, 2,102 cavalry..." I suggest using semi-colons to break up the numbers to avoid confusion due to use of commas to denote thousands. E.g. "6,292 infantry; 2,102 cavalry; 392 artillery..." (these would need to be done for all the other tables also if you decide to do it);
  • done
    • What date did the Advance Guard cross the Kehl and turn to the northeast? I assume it was 1 March, based on what is said in the lead, but perhaps it could be specifically stated in the main body also?
  • everyone started across on March 1, but Divisions II and III had to wait at Kehl until the Advance Guard crossed.
    • In the Units field for Right Brigade in I. Division, should "1st and 4th company" etc. be capitalised? You have "5th Company" capitalised (same in II. and III. Divisions);
  • should it be capitalized or not? I suppose yes. done
    • In III. Division you have "2nd dragoons", but should this be capitalised as "2nd Dragoons"? Is it an official unit name?
  • done
    • In the Artillery park section you haven't used the commas to denote thousands, although you've done this elsewhere. E.g. "1329" as opposed to "1,329". —AustralianRupert (talk) 04:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • CommentsSupport
    • There's a citation needed tag I added that needs to be addressed.
done.
    • What did the reserve do? It looks a little empty without any associated text while all the other sections have at least a couple lines.
added
    • Also, you've got a summary of the Army's actions, but it's not sourced there or brought up later in the article. This needs to be fixed as well.
moved and cited.
  • That's all for now. Parsecboy (talk) 13:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a question: is this supposed to be a list or an article? If the former, I might suggest keeping the summary of the actions that you moved into the body in the introduction. Now both sections look a little lonely, but before you had a pretty solid introduction. This is just me musing, I'm just thinking of how I have List of battleships of Germany organized. Feel free to do what you like. My concerns have been addressed so I'm moving to support. Parsecboy (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • good point. I moved it back to the lead. I'm not used to having stuff in the lead that needs citations. Added a few other bits I've found. Thanks for support. Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brief comments
  • You've got an inconsistent mix of French and English unit titles. I'd recommend translating all titles into English with odd or hard to translate French titles in parentheses, like Chasseurs à Cheval. More later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
fixed Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few things cleaned up and I left one clarification note. Once that's resolved I'll support.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
already fixed. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • There are no cites for either the inspector generals or the adjutants of the staff section, and only two cites for the general staff section. Are we to infer from this that the two cites are meant to cover the entire section, and if so, are they to extend to the uncited sections as well?
Would you suggest a citation at the end of each line? How should I do this? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I added the information into a table, and cited it as I did the other ones. See if that it satisfactory. Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of the information in the table in the article is cited, some of it is not. Are we to infer that the uncited information in the table is cited to the book(s) referenced at the bottom of the tables.
That is what this means: Sources: Unless otherwise cited, Roland Kessinger and Geert van Uythoven. Army of the Danube Order of Battle Accessed 14 April 2010.

TomStar81 (Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Army_of_the_Danube_order_of_battle&oldid=365593603"